Q21 - Literary critic: There is little of...

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Support

Stimulus Breakdown:
PREMISES:
[conditional]If we can't explore world from characters' moral perspective, then we can't enter the novelist's mind
[fact] contemporary novel events' purpose is sensationalism
CONCLUSION: Contemporary novels are therefore of little of social significance

Answer Anticipation:
The author is making two critical assumptions here. First, we have to assume that if the purpose is sensationalism, we can't explore the world from the characters' moral perspective. Second, we have to assume that if we can't enter the novelist's mind, novels have little social significance.

So, let's say we believe that contemporary novels trigger the conditional statement - i.e., that we don't experience the world from the characters' moral perspective. Well, then we would know that we couldn't enter the novelist's mind. But that doesn't necessarily mean that those novels have little social significance.

Correct answer:
(E)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This brings up past vs future - that doesn't help here.

(B) We don't need anything about empathizing.

(C) "Engaging moral sensibilities" is not the same thing as seeing the world from the moral perspective of the characters.

(D) This answer would tell me when things ARE socially significant. I need an answer that tells me when things are NOT. Also, we don't need the moral perspective to be from the point of view of a victim.

(E) If novels are only significant to the extent we can enter the novelist's mind, that would mean that if we CAN'T enter the novelist's mind, there won't be much social significance. This answer cleanly connects the result of the conditional with the conclusion itself.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Principle Support answers will connect parts of the premise to the conclusion. So look for something that helps makes the jump that the conclusion makes.

#officialexplanation

[RiaK633]

Thank you for the explanation. I'm still confused on answer E. How do we know that contemporary novels don't usually allow readers to enter the internal world of the novelist's mind? Are we supposed to assume that because their only purpose is to make readers wonder what will happen next, that they don't also allow this? Just because that is their purpose, it doesn't mean that they don't end up also allowing readers to enter the mind. I'm confused about where they address this assumption

[snoopy]

Thank you for the explanation. I'm still confused on answer E. How do we know that contemporary novels don't usually allow readers to enter the internal world of the novelist's mind? Are we supposed to assume that because their only purpose is to make readers wonder what will happen next, that they don't also allow this? Just because that is their purpose, it doesn't mean that they don't end up also allowing readers to enter the mind. I'm confused about where they address this assumption

You're right. If contemporary novels' characters' actions serve only to be sensationalist, then they must not allow experience into the moral perspective of characters. If they do not allow experience of moral perspective, then they cannot enter the novelist's mind.
E connects the idea that contemporary novels (CN) are not of social significance (SS).
Conclusion: CN --> ~SS (SS -> ~CN)
We know readers can't enter a novelist's mind (NM) unless they experience a character's moral perspective (MP).
Premise 1: NM -> MP (~MP -> ~NM)
We also know that CNs' characters actions are only sensationalist. If they are only sensationalist, then they do not allow for moral perspective.
Premise 2: CN --> ~MP (MP -> ~CN)

We can connect NM -> MP -> ~CN, but we need to find an answer connecting SS with ~CN.

A: Artistic expression? Should not? Past novels? They all do not connect contemporary novels and social significance. Eliminate.
B: Doesn't tie novels with social significance. Eliminate.
C: Moral sensibilities of its audience isn't mentioned in the stim. From the stim, you can't assume anything from the moral sensibilities of the audience.
D: Contrapositive of this would be, "If novel is not socially significant, then the novel doesn't allow a reader to understand injustice." Some people (like me) might have construed "doesn't allow a reader to understand injustice" as not allowing moral perspective (~MP).
~SS --> ~MP
Even then, there's no way to connect CN to SS with this conditional because it looks like this: CN -> ~SS -> ~MP, but we are trying to find a connection between SS and ~CN.
E: That leaves this answer. Novels have SS only when they allow entrance to the novelist's mind.
SS -> NM (~NM -> ~SS)

With E, we can say CN -> ~MP -> ~NM -> ~SS (if a contemporary novel, it must not allow experience into moral perspective, which means it cannot let us into a novelist's mind. That means it's not socially significant.)